US Ambassador David Balton, Chair of the Senior Arctic Officials, with Aleut representatives of the Russian Commander Islands before the Arctic Council Ministerial at the Carlson Center in Fairbanks, Alaska on Thursday, May 11, 2017. Bob Hallinen/Press Association. All rights reserved.2017 was the year of principled
power. The Social Democratic Party in Germany grappled with another coalition
giving them immediate power, but potentially harming their long-term prospects.
Brexit advocates promised to boost Britain’s post-imperial power. Meanwhile
populists fought elections, deselections and referendums promising to take
power from elites and give it to the people. Politicians across the world gave
up fighting for actual, practical power.
Without new tactics, 2018 will be no
better. Italian elections and a renewed mandate for Orban in Hungary will be a
speedbump, if not a roadblock for EU policymaking. A referendum in Switzerland
on their EU relationship will also suck up capacity in the name of national
power. Grand statements on formal power will only make it harder to get things
done.
Modern power is complex. Dani
Rodrik, the Turkish economist and Ford
Foundation Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard, has written extensively on the ‘trilemma’ facing modern governments; the
impossibility of balancing national sovereignty, democracy and the liberal
order.
Our rules-based institutions, like
NATO, World Trade Organisation or through trade deals and political agreements,
constrain formal sovereignty. Each gradually narrows states’ scope to make
decisions. Although, as with Brexit or Trump’s actions on Trans Pacific
Partnership, the Paris Climate Accords and UNESCO, withdrawal can appear to return
that freedom.
But constraint doesn’t mean that
states lack power. Formal sovereignty is an outdated concept, a throwback to
the nineteenth century when powers acted alone. It was made for when power was
centralised and singular. The modern world is more pragmatic. Change comes
slowly, through consensus and coalitions. Power has leaked to cities and
regions, citizens and businesses.
Liberal structures bring countries
together, allowing them to amplify their voice, and make their priorities
global priorities. Last November Ireland, a country of just four and half
million people, and the 41st largest world economy, gave a masterclass in
this.
Throughout Brexit, Ireland has
underlined the importance of the all-Ireland economy, and the implications of a
hard border for peace. Traditional statecraft would pitch Ireland against
Britain, in a dispute that hasn’t previously gone well for the Emerald Isle.
Instead inside diplomacy made the issue an EU red-line. Irish Taoiseach, Leo
Varadkhar, now has 26 nations and the world’s second largest economy behind
him. The UK is only lucky Spain hasn’t pushed as hard on Gibraltar. Irish Taoiseach, Leo
Varadkhar, now has 26 nations and the world’s second largest economy behind
him. The UK is only lucky Spain hasn’t pushed as hard on Gibraltar.
For years the UK excelled at this.
The single market, EU enlargement, global data protection laws — all shaped to the
UK’s priorities. Canada’s experience meanwhile shows the difficulty of influencing
from the outside. Negotiating CETA, Canada accepted EU rules, from data to
‘rules of origin’. Canada sacrificed formal power for economic growth and a relationship
with more effective influence.
Norway takes a similar attitude.
Officially outside the tent and ‘rule-taking’, but with long-built
relationships, they are ruthlessly effective at influencing early in the EU
legislative process. It takes more resource and has less formal sovereignty,
but given that roughly three quarters of EU rules affect Norway, it is well
spent.
The liberal world
order enhances sovereignty, allowing countries to stand up to traditionally
stronger opponents. With more countries inside the tent, the relative size of
those outside falls, leaving former global powers increasingly marginalized.
The result is still classic power politics, the smaller party converging with
the wishes of the larger. The only difference is who that smaller power
is. With more countries
inside the tent, the relative size of those outside falls, leaving former
global powers increasingly marginalized. The result is still classic power
politics.
Central governments are also losing
power internally. Devolution to cities and regions has allowed them to be
actors on the world stage. Coalitions like the C40 are far more effective in
taking action on climate change. The effectiveness of working together
internationally may have contributed to regions like Scotland or Catalonia
pushing for their own sovereign status. The EU umbrella takes away the pressure
and cost of foreign policy and of trade agreements.
Addressing modern problems requires
close connections and consensus between states. Cross-border challenges and
communication don’t respect formal sovereignty. Protecting citizens requires
governments to sacrifice to make progress. Cooperation
in the Arctic, through the Arctic
Council, will be vital to prevent disputes over new resources, and
prevent irreversible environmental damage. An independent drive for oil or
unaligned shipping routes will hurt more than frosty negotiations.
Business tends to follow standards
set by the most powerful group. The ‘Brussels effect’ means even those
businesses based in low-regulation settings, will meet high standards to sell
into the EU market. A country exercising sovereignty to change its own
regulatory standards will not necessarily have any effect on exporting
companies. The ‘Brussels
effect’ means even those businesses based in low-regulation settings, will
meet high standards to sell into the EU market.
Few politicians are willing to stand
up for the power to actually make decisions. Fewer still are able to
demonstrate this benefit to voters. The left rail against those willing to work
across the political divide, regardless of whether some progress is better than
none. The right rages against a world where they cannot always get what they
want, praying to return to a time when borders stopped everything.
Formal sovereignty is an outdated idea; one that is
reflected at all levels of power. Without the pragmatism to forge consensus
than no political solution will ever be sustainable. There is still room for
idealism, and indeed this must be the starting point. But true power in the modern
world lies in shifting the consensus to meet your aims — not in retreating
until you have control in name only.
